Definitive versions. Original recording verses reworked release.
Posted by: JamieL on 27 January 2009
I have several recordings where artists have gone back to early compositions and either rerecorded them, or significantly remixed them.
In general I do find that I nearly always prefer the original version, even if it has bum notes, or dodgy equipment limiting the music. I like the character of the artist striving to achieve the sound. I am specifically thinking of studio recordings, not live reworkings which I feel are something quite different.
I am quite biased towards the sounds of certain instruments, and against others, particularly with keyboards, 70's Hammonds and Mellotrons I love, 80's DX7s I dislike. When Tangerine Dream released a box set in the early 90's where modern digital synth tracks were dubbed over analogue synth recordings I found it greatly detracted from the music, the two sounds did not belong together.
I am most aware of this with instrumental artists such as Mike Oldfield, Jean Michel Jarre, Tangerine Dream, etc.
I also have a few tracks where a vocal has been redubbed on a 'best of' album, and again I find that I am wedded to the original version.
That said, I am probably a bit obsessive about having a version that I consider definitive, as when I bought some albums on CD, that I had owned on vinyl, I found that sometimes I missed scratches that I had become accustomed to over the years.
There is one band who I do feel have greatly improved their tracks by re-recording them, and that is Kraftwerk, 'The Mix' I think is a fantastic album, but I am sure some find it a disappointment as I have found with the other artists I mention.
With Jazz or Classical music, there is probably a subtle difference as a definitive version is down to the interpretation of the performers, rather than a writer trying to achieve a recording of a new piece of music, although this does happen sometimes.
Do others have pieces of music that they feel have either been brought to life by a new recording, or feel that many re-recordings are pointless?
In general I do find that I nearly always prefer the original version, even if it has bum notes, or dodgy equipment limiting the music. I like the character of the artist striving to achieve the sound. I am specifically thinking of studio recordings, not live reworkings which I feel are something quite different.
I am quite biased towards the sounds of certain instruments, and against others, particularly with keyboards, 70's Hammonds and Mellotrons I love, 80's DX7s I dislike. When Tangerine Dream released a box set in the early 90's where modern digital synth tracks were dubbed over analogue synth recordings I found it greatly detracted from the music, the two sounds did not belong together.
I am most aware of this with instrumental artists such as Mike Oldfield, Jean Michel Jarre, Tangerine Dream, etc.
I also have a few tracks where a vocal has been redubbed on a 'best of' album, and again I find that I am wedded to the original version.
That said, I am probably a bit obsessive about having a version that I consider definitive, as when I bought some albums on CD, that I had owned on vinyl, I found that sometimes I missed scratches that I had become accustomed to over the years.
There is one band who I do feel have greatly improved their tracks by re-recording them, and that is Kraftwerk, 'The Mix' I think is a fantastic album, but I am sure some find it a disappointment as I have found with the other artists I mention.
With Jazz or Classical music, there is probably a subtle difference as a definitive version is down to the interpretation of the performers, rather than a writer trying to achieve a recording of a new piece of music, although this does happen sometimes.
Do others have pieces of music that they feel have either been brought to life by a new recording, or feel that many re-recordings are pointless?